The false memory aspect an interesting one and certainly "changes the water on the beans." If she had therapy, which wouldn't surprise me, these 'memories' might have arisen then. False Memory Syndrome Foundation Lots of strange things can happen to a person's mind when they're under serious trauma.

Quote:

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

We still don't have all the facts but I just can't believe Dershowitz is that stupid, whereas Jane Doe is probably less sophisticated in the legal arena. It's also possible that she is suffering from false memories.

Prince Andrew is a 't**s and bums man' who is prone to making spectacularly inappropriate comments about women, a former acquaintance has claimed.
The source said Andrew often breached the bounds of social acceptance with his remarks - including one that left a pregnant woman 'ashen-faced' with shock.
'He has always been a t**s and bums man,' said the acquaintance.
The claims came as historic pictures of the Prince re-emerged, showing him surrounded by topless women in tiny bikinis enjoying an end-of-year holiday back in 2001.
The picture, it is understood, was taken while Andrew was on holiday in Phuket, Thailand, with his friend Jeffrey Epstein.

And as suspected the media seem keen to drag this out and Andrew just keeps giving them plenty to talk about. Clearly Andrew knew what sort of man Epstein was, even if he didn't know his crimes.

The false memory aspect an interesting one and certainly "changes the water on the beans." If she had therapy, which wouldn't surprise me, these 'memories' might have arisen then. False Memory Syndrome Foundation Lots of strange things can happen to a person's mind when they're under serious trauma.

Possibly. She may just hate Dershowitz because he was one of Epstein's lawyers. On the other hand she could be telling the truth. We'll see if the details add up.

I doubt that Andrew has done what he is accused of. I think he was too naive to know what Epstein was doing, but there is no excuse to the fact that he continued this friendship after Epstein was arrestert.
Andrew has poor judgment and he has always been surrounded by scandals such as friendship with dictators, lovers, the madness with Sarah etc etc.
The mail, the sun and the mirror is not going to give up, this will go on throughout the year.

This should have been another good year for the royal family with the birth of an new royal baby in April and The Queen's milestone in September. I hope it blows over before Her Majesty's 90th birthday in 2016.

I feel sorry for The Queen. Yet again she has been let down by her family.

And to those in the press who says that Andrew is The Queen's favourite son, Sophie the favourite daughter-in-law and Peter Phillips the favorite grandson, this is just nonsense. I have heard that The Queen loves all her children, daughters-in-law and grandchildren, she hasn't any favourites.

__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.

Prince Andrew is a 't**s and bums man' who is prone to making spectacularly inappropriate comments about women, a former acquaintance has claimed.
The source said Andrew often breached the bounds of social acceptance with his remarks - including one that left a pregnant woman 'ashen-faced' with shock.
'He has always been a t**s and bums man,' said the acquaintance.
The claims came as historic pictures of the Prince re-emerged, showing him surrounded by topless women in tiny bikinis enjoying an end-of-year holiday back in 2001.
The picture, it is understood, was taken while Andrew was on holiday in Phuket, Thailand, with his friend Jeffrey Epstein.

And as suspected the media seem keen to drag this out and Andrew just keeps giving them plenty to talk about. Clearly Andrew knew what sort of man Epstein was, even if he didn't know his crimes.

You know, for quite a while I was feeling sorry for Andrew regarding his marriage to Fergie. Now I believe that the two of them are well-suited.

One thing I think we can pretty much be sure on is that no matter what happens with the civil suit filed by the Jane Does or the defamation affidavits being slung between the attorneys, in the long run, the Jane Does will win quite a bit of fame and green dollars. One is already writing her "memoirs" and I smell a big round of talk show appearances with perhaps a made for Lifetime TV movie.

The rash of publicity I think is the first and foremost aim of any of the Jane Does or the lawyers pressing the suit. It seems to have worked. This will not go away silently into the night.

__________________
I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

I can't link it because I can't find it but The Times (British broadsheet) came out with a strong editorial today, referring to the Andrew mess and calling for a slimmed down monarchy. The leader stated 'no royal family is permanent or indispensable.'

One thing I think we can pretty much be sure on is that no matter what happens with the civil suit filed by the Jane Does or the defamation affidavits being slung between the attorneys, in the long run, the Jane Does will win quite a bit of fame and green dollars. One is already writing her "memoirs" and I smell a big round of talk show appearances with perhaps a made for Lifetime TV movie.

The rash of publicity I think is the first and foremost aim of any of the Jane Does or the lawyers pressing the suit. It seems to have worked. This will not go away silently into the night.

If you're right, I can't find myself able to care. Epstein certainly used the girls to his advantage and to further his aims, and if they manage to turn it to their advantage I say good luck to them!

__________________"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"

I can't link it because I can't find it but The Times (British broadsheet) came out with a strong editorial today, referring to the Andrew mess and calling for a slimmed down monarchy. The leader stated 'no royal family is permanent or indispensable.'

I don't agree.

__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.

I think if you want a royal family you accept them warts and all...or get rid of them. Edward VII, Edward VIII, Prince Phillip, Charles and Dianna, Princess Margaret to name a few, have all had inappropriate relationships and going further back it is as bad. Certainly Queen Elizabeth seems beyond reproach and devoted to her position and country, as does William but there will be continue to be scandals when you're in the public eye and act inappropriately. Despite this I find their lives fascinating.

This is Steven Glover in the Daily Fail also referring to the Times article, which is behind a paywall. I agree with Glover, however that it is odd comment from a serious broadsheet that is usually (though left-leaning) pro-Establishment.

It's one of the things that bugs me whenever something like this happens the republics etc always want to use it as an excuse to get rid of the Royal Family, every family has issues and things that happen but they don't get front page news. This will help Charles if he really does want a slimmed down Monarchy. The girl or girls could have already made plenty of money without doing all of this and going through with it all. I can see why they are mad he got a real sweet deal for what he did and they want answers and they want it not to happen to others. We don't know how much they are asking for the fact they never went after Andrew and refused to be paid off by Epstein makes me think it isn't all to do with money. Let's hope we don't get anymore Andrew bombshells or pictures. I also hope he hasn't been seeing Epstein on the sly the last couple of years he is arrogant enough to. Her lawyers would off had to have done some sort of checking or they would look like fools and could be disbarred. I'm afraid we will be hearing about this until the court case is over. The Queen doesn't need this not at any age Prince Phillip wasn't well last year and he seems to have recovered but you can't bounce back like you used to at 90. According to reports Andrew is going to continue with his duties like nothing is going on I'm not so sure this is the best idea.

Can anyone think of any respected Establishment-type person who has spoken up in the Duke of York's defense? So many people have had dealings with him over the years with various things: his Naval career, his work for British business, his various charity and educational endeavors. Why isn't anyone from these fields coming forward saying that they find the allegations unbelievable? That Andrew is above the things he's accused of? The silence is deafening.

I fully agree with Glover's closing statement: "The danger is that, when she is gone, indolent and roistering princes will be allowed to undermine the precious institution she has so selflessly served."

This is Steven Glover in the Daily Fail also referring to the Times article, which is behind a paywall. I agree with Glover, however that it is odd comment from a serious broadsheet that is usually (though left-leaning) pro-Establishment.

I can't link it because I can't find it but The Times (British broadsheet) came out with a strong editorial today, referring to the Andrew mess and calling for a slimmed down monarchy. The leader stated 'no royal family is permanent or indispensable.'

Finally found it! I subscribe to "The Times" online but it's only in the last half hour that I have learned how to search for articles. I have been under-utilising the resource!

Starts by summarising the allegations against Epstein, refers to photos of Andrew with the topless girls on the yacht, to claims evidence against Epstein has been covered up following lobbying by "political and social connections", that women have refused to answer questions about Andrew's involvement, noting names of persons listed in Epstein's contacts book, the claim prosecutors are refusing to release important evidence, refers to the plea bargain and allegation US attorney’s office promised Epstein that he would not be prosecuted for the sexual abuse of 30 under-age girls if he admitted a lesser charge, to letter from Robert's lawyer to Attorney-General in 2008 in which he said Epstein “may be the most dangerous sexual predator that the country has ever seen”, refers to the three women who refused to give self-incriminating evidence when interviewed about Prince Andrew and other matters, and sets out the terms of the questions they would not answer.

It then goes on to talk about Andrew's life since he left the navy. Then says:

"Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is clear that while Prince Andrew’s life out of uniform has not been short of entertainment, it has been short of structure. He has been content to craft for himself the portfolio existence of a freelance royal. He has depended too much on his friends to help to support a lifestyle that, even as a scion of one of Britain’s richest families, he could not fund himself. And he has chosen those friends poorly."

Then discussion about the changes over the last 2 decades with HM starting to pay tax, cost cutting and savings including the sale of the R.Y. Britannia, and proceeds to say the RF is too big and needs to be streamlined, for the sake of the family and the country.

"As elected leaders wrestle with tight budgets and taxpayers struggle to fund them, it is only right that the royal family cuts its cloth accordingly. This is not only a question of funds, but of expectations and an evolving sense of what the monarchy stands for. It has endured as a symbol of constancy and as a ceremonial focal point at times of national mourning and celebration. To go on enduring it must become more like the royal families that coexist comfortably with modernity elsewhere in Europe, and less like the retrograde clichés foisted on it by an endlessly fascinated media."

It then says that the monarchy's official duties should be performed by HM and those in direct line to succeed her, that others (Anne, Harry and Andrew) have set inspiring examples but have been most constructive when gainfully employed. "Outside such roles they represent more of a risk than a benefit to the royal family."

[Comment: Don't understand the remark about Anne, who is one of the most productive and impressive, since she has never been "gainfully employed". Maybe she's the exception that proves the rule.]

"For too long Prince Andrew has lacked a real role. He has tried and failed to find one because he has been looking in the wrong place. It is not unreasonable to suggest that his predicament is a by-product of this fruitless search; or to exhort younger members of the “firm” to learn from this urgent cautionary tale, forget their lineage and make their own ways in the world."

Concluding paragraph points out that, according to its website, Britain’s royal family has 18 official members, notes that Sweden’s and Belgium’s have nine, Denmark’s seven and Norway’s five, all keeping official numbers low by making clear distinctions between those with representative duties and those without, then says, "The House of Windsor needs more clarity along these lines. More importantly, it needs a clearer vision of itself, not as a crisis-prone family business but as a family led by the head of state. Last year Spain’s king abdicated; this year his daughter could face trial for fraud. No royal family is indispensable, or permanent."

__________________"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"

This is Steven Glover in the Daily Fail also referring to the Times article, which is behind a paywall. I agree with Glover, however that it is odd comment from a serious broadsheet that is usually (though left-leaning) pro-Establishment.

Not odd in the slightest. No sensible person in the UK, even before this scandal, would've disagreed with the idea that all public institutions should be as lean and efficient as possible. That includes the monarchy. Not even the staunchest monarchist could justify a continuation of the situation whereby the monarch's cousins as well as all her children and their spouses (with the exception of Anne's) are full-time working members of the Firm. That simply will not happen again and was going to come to an end even if Andrew had lived the rest of his life in an exemplary fashion.

It's part of the reason I hope William and Kate stop at 2 children, harsh as it sounds. As we've seen in just about every monarchy still operating, being the spare is not easy in the 21st Century. The more spares there are, the more problems seem to follow.

There's really nothing new in The Times leader column (as a Times subscriber, I read the paper daily).

The photos are from 2001. The time in question.
The DM refers to them as woman. If these are the type of women Andrew met when he was with Epstein then they were women not girls.

Also I wish people would not refer to teenagers whether 16, 17, 18 or 19 as young girls. They are teenagers referring to them as young girls is misleading as is the DM articles saying Andrew's accuser.

The woman is rightfully upset that Epstein received a slap on the wrist rather than a lengthly jail time. 40 girls and only months in prison.

I don't agree with those who want a slimmed down monarchy, but PetticoatLane is right that the monarch's cousins doesn't need to be full-time working members of the Firm. That will not happen again and was going to come to an end even if Andrew had lived the rest of his life in an exemplary fashion, but this problem solves itself, because the so-called minor royals grow older.

__________________

__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.